Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner, leanred Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Anuj Prasad Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 with the prayer to direct the District Judge, Baghpat to conclude and decide the proceedings of LAR No.22 of 2004 (Sh. Pheroo Vs. State of U.P. and another) expeditiously.
Since the matter was not decided, earlier a petition No.22220 of 2009 has been filed before this Court which was decided on 28.04.2009. The aforesaid order is quoted below :-
?Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appear for the respondents.
The petitioner has prayed for expediting the Land Acquisition Reference No.22 of 2004 filed by him for enhancement of compensation.
A perusal of the order sheet would show that evidence was closed on 09.04.2008 and thereafter the matter was fixed and is being adjourned for arguments. An application 85C2 was filed and was directed to be provided to all the parties. Thereafter the reference has been listed on about eight or nine occasion but the matter has not proceeded any further. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform the purpose for which the application 85C2 has been moved. The order sheet also find that large number of land acquisition references have also been connected with the present mattre vide order dated 03.09.2005. Prima facie we are not satisfied that there has been any such unreasonable delay to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with observations that the Ist Additional District Judge, Baghpat will do well to decide the land acquisition reference, expeditiously and if possible within a period of six months from the day a certified copy of this order is produced before him.?
It is unfortunate that despite clear direction given by this Court to the District Judge to conclude and decide the aforesaid reference within six months, but the same was not decide. In this view of the matter, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Petition under Matter Under Article 227 No.1907 of 2018 (Sh. Pheroo Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of on 28.03.2018. The aforesaid order is quoted below:-
?Heard counsel for the petitioner.
This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for issuing suitable order or direction to District & Sessions Judge, Baghpat to decide L.A.R. No. 22 of 2004 ( Sh. Pheroo Vs. State of UP and another), expeditiously, within stipulated time.
Without entering into the controversy involved in the petition, this petition is disposed of with direction to District & Sessions Judge, Baghpat to decide L.A.R. No. 22 of 2004 ( Sh. Pheroo Vs. State of UP and another), expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties , preferably, within a period of six months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him.?
It is most unfortunate that even after two judgments of different benches of this Court, the mater has not yet been decided finally. Copy of the order-sheets have been placed on record. It appears from perusal of the same that large number of dates were fixed but till date no final decision has been taken on the same by the Presiding Officer.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of finally, It appears from perusal of the record that the proceeding of the aforesaid LAR is pending consideration for more than 26 years. The following question was posed for determination before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgum Auto Plast P. Ltd. and others, reported at 2011 (89) ALR 232 :
"14.....Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the court be silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward?"
8. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the imperative of expeditious disposal of suits to preserve the faith in the judicial system held thus:
"15...It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek - and the courts grant - adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the judges are little pro-active and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit."
16....No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system."
17....."A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit -- whether the plaintiff or the defendant -- must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril."
Interminable delays caused by unnecessary adjournments sought for and granted to parties in a routine manner, and the collective responsibility of all the stake holders in the judicial system arose for determination before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noor Mohammed Vs. Jethanand and another, reported at (2013) 5 SCC 202.
Dispensing justice is the fundamental raison d'etre of the judicial system. Timely delivery of justice is indispensable to retaining the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation system.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, present petition is disposed of directing the Presiding Officer/District Judge Baghpat, to decide the L.A.R. No. 22 of 2004 ( Sh. Pheroo Vs. State of UP and another) most expeditiously but not later than four months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
In case, any adjournment is granted, in the paramount of interest of justice, the Court below shall record the reason for granting such adjournment and imposed a cost of not below Rs.5000/- upon the party seeking such adjournment.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021 saqlain